Posted on 11/14/2006 10:55:16 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
One reason so many Americans despise politicians is because of the contempt that many politicians have for their fellow Americans. A case in point is the way the Massachusetts legislature used a procedural ruse to deny the voters even a chance to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage.
Recall that in 2003 four of seven Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justices declared gay marriage a constitutional right. In response, opponents collected 170,000 signatures to support a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to make clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. But to get on the ballot, the amendment must also be voted on by a joint session of the legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions. Under the state constitution, 25% of the legislators must agree to put an amendment on the ballot, provided the proposal has garnered at least 25,000 signatures, which this one easily did.
Last week, the pols denied the voters even that much with a procedural trick that recessed the legislature until just hours before its term expires next January. By the time the lawmakers return, they won't have enough time to vote up or down on the measure, thus dodging a vote on a measure that 170,000 of their constituents decided merited space on the ballot. This leaves intact the judicial same-sex fiat.
"The way I looked at it was that we would kill it with a handgun or a hand grenade," explained Democratic Representative Michael Costello. "It's never been proper to put civil rights on the ballot. So we killed it through procedure, rather than on substance."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I should not be surprised by now to witness such crap coming out of the land of the Winter Soldier and the Drunk Swimmah!
What the American people want doesn't matter to LIBERALS.
Amen
Any way to make this a denial of due process issue?
Bork was right.
Funny the politician should talk about hand guns and hand grenades in thwarting the will of 170,000 voters - those are two tools that have been commonly used to overthrow tyrants throughout history.
Not under American law. Here, the people's representatives, and sometimes the people themselves, make the law. The judiciary is only delegated to apply the law. Where the judiciary oversteps its authority, it's true that one option is to explicitly pass legislation affirming what the court has tried to deny. But that's in a way giving the court too much deference.
There's another option: If a court makes a ruling that in a matter where it lacks jurisdiction, ignore it. It's irrelevant, because legally, it didn't happen. Legislative bodies, municipalities, and even individuals need to get this straight.
Courts are made up of human beings, who are fallible and love power. Like the Pharisees, they will always be tempted to assume the obedience they receive follows not from their office, but their person. They will push the limits of their authority until they meet appropriate resistance.
Now that I think of it, ignoring rulings like the "gay marriage" fiat may not be enough. The only thing sufficient is laughter.
It's not a civil rights issue a-hole!! I suppose throwing idiots like this out of office has about a snowball's chance in hell in MA!
The Statistics on Homosexuality and its Effects
Posted on 10/14/2005 5:03:29 AM EDT by Exton1
Isn't Romney the governor of this state?
You know, the voting booth is the last bastion of the racist. People can go in that booth and vote out of racist prejudice till the cows come home. Let's do somethin' about that. From now on if a Progressive candidate or cause is voted down it should be declared prima facie a racist vote and thrown out.
The Mass. legislature has ignored the will of the people on many occasions. They once pulled the same stunt (as with the marriage amendment) on a petition to repeal a "temporary" income tax. The tax (needless to say) is still in effect. They also voted themselves a pay raise in the dead of night. Unwanted bills are routinely delayed and then "quick-gaveled" (tabled without discussion) at a moment when no one is paying attention.
The level of political corruption in Massachusetts is hard to fathom. Howie Carr has written and spoken extensively about this, showing how thousands of people are bought off by graft and patronage. Entire extended families work for the State - provided jobs by legislators in exchange for their loyalty. Turnpike toll collectors' starting pay is over $60K, with more time off than you can imagine. Making change is apparently highly-skilled labor in the Bay State. Hacks at state agencies run everything - and do damned little for their inflated salaries. And every two year, the citizens go to the polls and vote for more of the same. I got out of there ten years ago, and it's only gotten worse.
Romney is the governor. He tries to have it both ways. Take a look at Mass and ask yourself if that's what you want for all of America.
Don't like gay marriage? Pass a law in YOUR STATE to preclude it...and the recognition of it from other states.
There's been alot of debate on this forum on what a "real" conservative is. Well, there's a difference between a Social Conservative and a Constitutional Conservative.
A Constitutional Conservative would respect the 10th amendment and allow a great deal of diversity on extra-constituional issues among the 50 states.
A Social Conservative would use the power of the the federal government to codify restrictions or enablement of social extra-constitutional issues nationwide.
Is it possible that Social Conservatives could support the Constituional Conservative point of view under the same party banner? Will they ever settle for dealing with the social issues at a state level as the Founding Fathers intended? Would overturning Roe be enough, or will a nationwide ban on abortion be the only acceptable outcome? How about gay marriage? Drugs and alcohol? School funding? etc.
I suggest that if the Social Conservatives, who have my most profound respect, insist on legislating their agenda at the federal level they will find themselves a minority party of 20%. Certainly able to swing elections...never big enough to win a majority of states for the Presidency or a majority of either house of Congress.
But, by joinging with Constitutional Conservatives a majority would be formed which would ensure the appointment of judges, which over the long-term, would re-shape the existing order to allow probably 30 states to ban abortion outright...and other 15 to place severe restriction upon it. In short, to overturn Roe.
Actually, I'm against such things as the Federal Marriage Amendment. I was simply posting this to expose these bastards at work.
Cool. We're the first two in a new majority:)
"Romney is the governor."
_____________________________
That's what I thought. If he was firmly rooted to traditional values why didn't he move heaven and earth to bring the issue to the voters. Couldn't he have called a special session of the legislature.
The Pub party is such a mess right now. Where are the conservatives?
Is that not enuff for you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.